The political question doctrine is a controversial admissibility requirement that intersects the rule of law and separation of powers. Based on recent ECtHR and ECJ judgments, this blog post highlights the need to evaluate the doctrine within a broader framework of legal accountability.
The CJEU shook the world of football with its Diarra ruling on Friday, October 4. The impact of the ruling is all but a surprise for me. In a way, the FIFA transfer system was always on shaky legal grounds in terms of EU internal market law. Now, the chickens have come home to roost and key parts of the football transfer system have been brutally set aside. I aim to explain why the Diarra ruling marks a crucial turning point for football, its economy and even its identity.
Die Anfang Juni 2024 im Amtsblatt veröffentlichten neuen Regelungen über das Gemeinsame Europäische Asylsystem finden ab 2026 Anwendung. Weiterhin zentral bleibt dabei die Frage, welcher Mitgliedstaat für die Bearbeitung des Asylantrags zuständig ist. In Hinblick auf unbegleitete Minderjährige verstößt ein Zuständigkeitsbestimmungsverfahren, das regelhaft die Möglichkeit der Überstellung in den Erstregistrierungsstaat prüft, gegen die kinderrechtlichen Garantien der EU-Grundrechtecharta.
On September 13, the new Dutch government led by Dick Schoof outlined its programme for the next years. Unsurprisingly, a major point of this programme regards asylum and migration, for which the greatest ambition is to install the strictest regime ever and to include the Netherlands within the category of Member States of the European Union with the strictest admission rules. This post reviews these proposals through the lens of European Law to challenge their legal feasibility and flag the potential incompatibility with Dutch obligations stemming from EU and international law.
The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is under attack. In a recent Judgment against Hungary, the European Court of Justice has unambiguously stated that non-compliance with the rules of the CEAS undermines solidarity between Member States and strikes at the very heart of EU law. Traditional means of enforcement, however, seem insufficient to foster compliance with these rules. Against this backdrop, this blogpost argues for the unexplored avenue for enforcing the CEAS via horizontal state liability.
Amid the significant number of rulings delivered by the ECJ on 4 October 2024, the long-awaited judgment pitting football against the media stands out. In Real Madrid vs Le Monde, the Court held that excessive defamation damages may breach the freedom of the press and trigger the public policy exception under Brussels Ia Regulation concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In doing so, the ECJ allowed national courts to conduct a substantive review of foreign judgments despite the principle of mutual trust, to ensure the enforcement of fundamental rights across the EU.
On October 4th 2024 the Court of Justice issued its judgement in Front Polisario II upholding the judgement in which GC annulled Council’s decision on the conclusion of the trade agreement between European Union and Morocco. In its landmark judgement the Court acknowledged the legal standing of Front Polisario – the liberation movement representing rights of the people of Western Sahara. The Court’s findings advance the flexible and adequate approach on access to EU’s courts – and for that are worth applauding.
The CJEU interprets its Common Foreign and Security Policy jurisdiction in light of the objectives set by the Lisbon Treaty, thereby integrating part and parcel of the CFSP into the rest of the European Union acquis. This aligns the CFSP with the general principles and constitutional rules set in the Treaty. As the Court advances the integration of CFSP jurisdiction within the broader EU legal order, the judgements of 10 September 2024 in Neves 77 Solutions and KS and KD v Council and Others serve as landmark ruling for the future of judicial review in CFSP.
The struggle over the Maltese investment citizenship scheme is probably one of the fiercest debates of EU constitutional law. The conflict revolves around the question of whether EU law contains requirements for the acquisition of Union citizenship and whether these requirements consist in a “genuine link” between the respective state and individual. The recent Opinion by AG Collins provides us with an extremely narrow and astonishingly one-sided view. In particular, he seeks to make us believe that there are no sound ways to anchor a genuine link requirement in EU law. Martijn van den Brink finds it “hard to disagree with the Advocate General”. Respectfully, I disagree.
The Digital Markets Act (DMA) is a revolutionary tool to regulate EU digital markets, it complements competition law by imposing ex ante obligations on the largest digital undertakings. The General Court judgement in the ByteDance case was the first test of the limits of this expediated enforcement and resulted in a remarkable win for the Commission. The Court dismissed ByteDance’s appeal against the European Commission’s decision to designate ByteDance with its social network TikTok as gatekeeper under the DMA.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters